You are here: / Judges
, ,

EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge’s intervention usurped the roles of the attorneys and deprived defendant of a fair trial. Defense counsel did not object but the issue was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

“[W]hile a trial judge may intervene in a trial to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, the court may not take on the function or appearance of an advocate'” … . “The principle restraining the court’s discretion is that a trial judge’s function is to protect the record, not to make it'”… . Hence, “when the trial judge interjects often and indulges in an extended questioning of witnesses, even where those questions would be proper if they came from trial counsel, the trial judge’s participation presents significant risks of prejudicial unfairness” … .

In this case, the Supreme Court engaged in extensive questioning of witnesses, usurped the roles of the attorneys, elicited and assisted in developing facts damaging to the defense on direct examination of the People’s witnesses, bolstered the witnesses’ credibility, interrupted cross-examination, and generally created the impression that it was an advocate on behalf of the People. People v Ramsey, 2019 NY Slip Op 05571, Second Dept 7-10-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE BANK LACKED STANDING IN HIS ANSWER AND DID NOT OPPOSE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STANDING ISSUE AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have, sua sponte, denied plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action on the ground the bank did not establish standing. The bank need not affirmatively demonstrate standing absent the defendant’s assertion that the bank lacked standing. Here the defendant did not address the bank’s standing in his answer and did not oppose the motion for summary judgment:

… [A]s a general matter, a plaintiff need not establish its standing (i.e., that it held and/or owned the note at the time the action was commenced) as an essential element of the cause of action. Rather, it is only where the plaintiff’s standing is placed in issue by the defendant that the plaintiff must shoulder the additional burden of establishing its standing to commence the action, a burden satisfied by evidence that it was the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced” … .

In the present case, the defendant did not raise the issue of standing by asserting lack of standing as an affirmative defense in his answer or moving to dismiss the complaint on that ground in a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Inasmuch as the defendant “failed to . . . raise the issue, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to, sua sponte, do so on the defendant[‘s] behalf” … . The issue of standing was not properly before the Supreme Court … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Matzen, 2019 NY Slip Op 05386, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

,

DENIAL OF MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion when it failed to grant mother’s request for an adjournment:

The record demonstrates that the mother presented a valid and specific reason for her inability to attend the hearing well before the hearing date and supported her request for an adjournment, which was her first, with a letter from her inpatient provider. Further, although the mother’s counsel appeared on her behalf at the hearing, the record supports the mother’s contention that she was prejudiced by her inability to provide testimony at the hearing. The court denied the adjournment based on its general desire to effect a quick and efficient resolution of this matter. There was, however, no evidence that the child would have been harmed by an adjournment. Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 2019 NY Slip Op 05289, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A LATE NOTICE OF HIS INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined County Court abused its discretion by not allowing defendant to serve a late notice of his intent to offer psychiatric evidence:

“Psychiatric evidence is not admissible upon a trial unless the defendant serves upon the people and files with the court a written notice of his intention to present psychiatric evidence. Such notice must be served and filed before trial and not more than thirty days after entry of the plea of not guilty to the indictment. In the interest of justice and for good cause shown, however, the court may permit such service and filing to be made at any later time prior to the close of the evidence” (CPL 250.10[2]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence he proffered, in opposition to the People’s motion, for the purpose of negating intent, constituted “psychiatric evidence” under the statute (CPL 250.10[1] … ). The defendant failed to provide the People with timely notice of his intent to offer this evidence. However, the determination as to whether late notice should be permitted is a discretionary one, which requires the court to weigh the defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in his own defense against the prejudice to the People arising from late notice … .

Here, the record indicates that the trial court failed to exercise any discretion over whether to permit the defendant to serve late notice of his intent to offer psychiatric evidence … . Exercising our own discretion, we conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant should have been granted permission to serve late notice, and the People’s preclusion motion therefore should have been denied. The evidence that the defendant previously had suffered auditory hallucinations had high probative value to corroborate the defendant’s testimony that he entered the home with the intent to aid a woman who was yelling, rather than to damage the house … . Further, the preclusion of testimony regarding those portions of the defendant’s conversation with the responding officer which involved his past auditory hallucinations, and his resultant hospitalization, deprived the jury of the full context of the interaction. Any prejudice to the People was substantially outweighed by the defendant’s extremely strong interest in presenting the evidence … . People v Morris, 2019 NY Slip Op 05160, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, , , ,

HARDSHIP WAIVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE CORE PRESERVATION AREA OF THE LONG ISLAND CENTRAL PINES BARRENS PROPERLY DENIED, ACCOMPANYING ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED, SUA SPONTE, BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the Article 78 petition for a hardship waiver to allow petitioner to build a single family residence on property within the core preservation area of the Long Island Central Pines Barrens was properly denied. However, the accompanying declaratory judgment action (alleging the denial of the waiver was an unconstitutional taking) should not have been summarily dismissed by the judge absent a motion for that relief:

… [C]ontrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Commission’s determination to deny its application for an extraordinary hardship waiver had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. In particular, the Commission rationally found, inter alia, that the alleged hardship was not the result of any unique circumstances peculiar to the subject property (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][i] …) and, in any event, that the alleged hardship was self-created (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][ii], [iii] …). The Commission also rationally found that the application did not satisfy the requirements of ECL 57-0121(10)(c) and reasonably distinguished the application from prior applications for which it granted an extraordinary hardship waiver … . …

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”… . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v Pavacic, 2019 NY Slip Op 05125, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

,

JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was appropriate for a judge to decide a summary judgment motion, despite the fact that another judge heard the oral argument:

The fact that oral argument was held before a different Justice than the Justice who ultimately decided the motion for summary judgment is not a proper basis for vacating the order granting summary judgment. Although Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a Supreme Court Justice “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge,” reversal is not warranted on this ground, because the Justice who granted the motion decided a purely legal question … . Marti v Rana, 2019 NY Slip Op 05011, First Dept 6-20-19

 

, , ,

NO RECORD OF JUDGE’S DISCUSSION OF A JURY NOTE WITH COUNSEL, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED; DEFENDANT AUTHORIZED HIS AGENT TO SHOW HIS LETTER TO HIS ATTORNEY TO A THIRD PARTY, NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SENTENCES CANNOT BE CONSECUTIVE FOR CRIMES WITH THE SAME ACTUS REUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined (1) because there was no record of the judge’s discussion of a jury note with counsel, the murder conviction (the only count to which the jury note was relevant) must be reversed. (2) although defendant’s girlfriend was defendant’s agent for the purpose of delivering defendant’s letter, which was mailed to her, to his attorney, there was evidence defendant authorized his girlfriend’s mother to read the letter. therefore the attorney-client privilege was lost, (3) the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge has the same actus reus as the robbery and grand larceny charges, therefore the sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle cannot run consecutively with the sentences for robbery and grand larceny, but it can run consecutively to the sentences for the burglary and criminal possession of stolen property charges:

A divided Court of Appeals has held that meaningful notice is not provided where there is no record indicating that counsel was informed of the “precise contents” of the note before the response is given to the jury, or where the trial court paraphrases or summarizes a jury note …. Given the court’s statement to the jury that it had an off-the-record conversation with counsel regarding the note, it would not be unreasonable to believe that County Court had informed counsel of the note’s precise contents. However, the record contains no specific indication that the court provided counsel with the precise content of the note before it delivered its response to the jury, nor was the note read verbatim on the record before the response was given. Thus, the record fails to establish that counsel had the opportunity to participate in the formation of the court’s response to the jury’s substantive inquiry.  * * *

In these circumstances, we conclude that [defendant’s girlfriend]  was acting as defendant’s agent. Thus, whether the letter was protected by the attorney-client privilege turns on whether defendant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when he sent it to [her]. In that regard, there was contradictory evidence regarding whether defendant authorized [her] to share a copy of the letter with her mother, which County Court resolved by determining that defendant had authorized disclosure to [her] mother … . The determination that defendant specifically authorized disclosure of the letter to a third party, i.e., [his girlfriend’s] mother, established that defendant had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality and, therefore, defeated the attorney-client privilege. Thus, County Court did not err in admitting the letter. People v Henry, 2019 NY Slip Op 05024, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY SHE WAS NOT TICKETED; DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCREASED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO THE INCREASED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that defendant, in this traffic accident case, should not have been allowed to testify that she did not receive a traffic ticket. The court also noted that the trial judge properly determined the damages for past pain and suffering should be increased, but that the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to the increased amount. The trial judge had unconditionally increased the damages amount:

It is well established that “[e]vidence of nonprosecution is inadmissible in a civil action” … . In our view, however, that was the only error during trial … . We conclude that, “standing alone” … , the error was harmless, and therefore the court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought to set aside the jury verdict and a new trial on all issues (see CPLR 2002).

Plaintiff further contends that the jury’s damages award for pain and suffering materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries and that the deviation was not cured by the court’s increase of the award for past pain and suffering. We reject that contention. We conclude that the court properly determined that the jury’s verdict for past pain and suffering should be increased to $125,000 and that the award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s injuries (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The court, however, erred in unconditionally increasing the past pain and suffering award. ” [T]he proper procedure when a damages award is inadequate is to order a new trial on damages unless [a] defendant stipulates to the increased amount’ ” … . Queen v Kogut, 2019 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT REFLECT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged her bowel was perforated during surgery. The defense expert testified the bowel must be fully inspected as it is replaced, section by section. However, defendant surgeon testified he did not fully inspect the bowel. In addition the jury was asked to determine whether the bowel was subjected to a “focused inspection.” However there was no trial evidence equating a “focused inspection” with the standard of care. A new trial was necessary:

The weight of the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiff due, in no small part, to defendant’s testimony that he not only failed to perform a “focused inspection” of the bowel, but that “[he could not] not observe it” as he returned it into plaintiff’s abdomen. In not “observing” the bowel, defendant plainly could not have conducted a careful visualization of the body part as it was returned to plaintiff’s body; therefore he was plainly not performing a “focused inspection.” Defendant also admitted that “[he] didn’t specifically look for [bruising]” of the bowel, which his own expert testified is required when inspecting the bowel during an aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Defendant also testified that he only looked at the bowel’s top side. Although his expert did not testify that defendant was personally required to view the other side, she did explain that the other surgeon in the operating room must view that side so that both surgeons, collectively, can view the entire bowel. Defendant did not testify that he ensured that the assisting surgeon carefully viewed the back side of the bowel, segment by segment. Moreover, the assisting surgeon did not testify that defendant instructed her to do so. Inasmuch as defendant’s conduct does not meet the standard articulated by the expert witnesses, we conclude that the evidence so preponderates in plaintiff’s favor that the court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict … Monzon v Porter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04855, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR DISCUSSION WITH A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; UPON RETRIAL AN ADULT WITNESS SHOULD NOT TESTIFY WHILE ACCOMPANIED BY A THERAPY DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not waive his right to be present when a prospective juror told the judge and attorneys that she was not sure she had completely answered a voir dire question. Defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge asked defense counsel if he wanted his client present and defense counsel said he was “okay with it.” The juror then said that her son was a convicted felon. The Fourth Department also held that upon retrial an adult witness should not be allowed to testify accompanied by a therapy dog:

Initially, we conclude that the situation at issue here constituted a material stage of trial inasmuch as the prospective juror volunteered information about her son’s status as a convicted felon. This information was relevant to a question asked earlier during voir dire: “Have any of you or anyone close to you been a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, been accused of a crime, or participated in any way in a criminal proceeding?” That question was intended to be relevant to, inter alia, potential bias … . …

We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant did not waive his right to be present. It is well established that a defendant has the right to be present at every material stage of a trial, including matters such as questioning prospective jurors regarding bias … . “It is equally clear, however, that such right may be voluntarily waived by a defendant or the defendant’s attorney’ ” and that “a defendant’s waiver in this regard may be either express or implied” … . Here, without defendant being physically present in the courtroom, and with counsel simply stating to the court, “I’m okay with [his absence],” we perceive no basis to conclude that there was either an implicit or explicit waiver. Defendant’s absence from the courtroom when the prospective juror raised the issue of potential bias made it impossible for him to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to be present … . People v Geddis, 2019 NY Slip Op 04819, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

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